UA Inspects 787s following BOS fire
Jan 9, 2013, 11:21 am
#31
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BOS
Programs: riding the lifetime status. DL MM / AA MM
Posts: 2,968
Today's JAL flight out of BOS is canceled as well. This time, it's the brakes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...days-1B7906402
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...days-1B7906402
looks like NH 698 cancelled on Jan 9 due to maintenance.
Jan 9, 2013, 11:29 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LAX/BOS/HKG/AMS/SFO...hmm, I need a life.
Programs: United1K, AA ExPlAAt, DL MM/Gold, Hilton Diamond, Avis First
Posts: 13,316
Ah OK I just assumed the article was about BOS and did not check. None of these surprise me though...this stuff happens with every new technology.
Jan 9, 2013, 11:45 am
#33
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The KUL city
Programs: AA Lifetime Plat, TK Elite+
Posts: 2,662
+1. I checked the flight status a few hours before and it was already delayed to 14:00. I was making a connection at IAH and when they returned back to gate, I asked them to reroute me via AA. Seems like UA was having huge problems with their wide-body service at LAX yesterday. NRT-LAX was canceled, LAX-NRT delayed for 4 hours, LAX-PVG delayed for 3-4 hours.
Jan 9, 2013, 12:18 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,715
I am also a bit apprehensive about an upcoming 787 overwater flight. On the plus side they will probably be more thoroughly inspected than any other airplane, and there shouldn't be any wear issues. On the minus side, it may be luck of the draw on seat assignments if another plane is subbed. Have they been swapping in 747, 767 or 777s as replacements?
Jan 9, 2013, 12:22 pm
#35
Join Date: Jun 2010
Programs: Whatever's Cheapest, Accruing Miles, Redeeming for Premium Cabins, Not Chasing Status Unnecessarily
Posts: 2,264
the lithium battery fire was so hot the NTSB said it took 40 minutes to put out per cnbc's article.
fuel economy and cost savings won't matter if the safety isnt there
#nuclearpowerandJapan
fuel economy and cost savings won't matter if the safety isnt there
#nuclearpowerandJapan
Jan 9, 2013, 12:37 pm
#36
In memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL (ORD), Phoenix AZ (PHX)
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM, Starwood Platinum, a nothing in several others
Posts: 5,176
My domestic flight today was flight today was substituted with 737-800. I was told today by a 1K desk agent that the international 787 deployment program is on hold.
Jan 9, 2013, 12:53 pm
#37
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: DEN, or so it says...
Programs: UA1K/RCC, Avis CHM, NWA Plat, SPG Plat
Posts: 2,885
They just updated the article. When it first came out, they didn't mention it was an UBJ-HND flight.
Jan 9, 2013, 6:39 pm
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,715
Jan 9, 2013, 6:56 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 31,962
Jan 9, 2013, 8:07 pm
#41
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Of course not, but the issue is whether such service-entry issues ('early adopter syndrome' I think is well-applied) is worth investing considerable capital in dated technology (more 767s) to 'bridge the gap'. I don't consider the 787-8 interchangeable with the 777 to the extent that orders for one could be substituted for the other. They serve different market segments, so I consider the 767-300ER to be a more realistic alternative, and it is documented that the 787-8 has roughly 20% reduced fuel burn over that airplane. The troubles the 787 has encountered during the shakedown period would have to be of such magnitude that, amortized over the expected 20-25 year service life of a new airframe and holding fuel constant, the overall cost advantage of a 787 over the 763ER (two airplanes with virtually no commonality) is completely mitigated. There, and only there, does ordering 767s in lieu of 787s become a more economical proposition. I don't think we have reached that point yet.
He rolled the dice. He was betting that the upside factors, which you have summarized well, would outweigh the downside factors, which we're seeing today and that this balance of upside and downside on the 787 decision would produce a better outcome than waiting a while longer or investing in some less advanced but more proven equipment, incrementally. It's not an either/or question. Not a question of 787 or not. But, there were a range of choices regarding quantity and timing of 787s.
The thing about being a CEO is that sometimes you have to roll the dice and then take the consequences. Ultimately, someone's got to make these decisions.
I don't have the qualifications to make a judgement on this, but I think it's fair to say that a reasonable CEO could have been more risk adverse in this decision than Smisek was.
Jan 9, 2013, 8:09 pm
#42
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
The question is, was Jeff wrong for committing so much to the 787, so early?
He rolled the dice. He was betting that the upside factors, which you have summarized well, would outweigh the downside factors, which we're seeing today and that this balance of upside and downside on the 787 decision would produce a better outcome than waiting a while longer or investing in some less advanced but more proven equipment, incrementally. It's not an either/or question. Not a question of 787 or not. But, there were a range of choices regarding quantity and timing of 787s.
The thing about being a CEO is that sometimes you have to roll the dice and then take the consequences. Ultimately, someone's got to make these decisions.
I don't have the qualifications to make a judgement on this, but I think it's fair to say that a reasonable CEO could have been more risk adverse in this decision than Smisek was.
He rolled the dice. He was betting that the upside factors, which you have summarized well, would outweigh the downside factors, which we're seeing today and that this balance of upside and downside on the 787 decision would produce a better outcome than waiting a while longer or investing in some less advanced but more proven equipment, incrementally. It's not an either/or question. Not a question of 787 or not. But, there were a range of choices regarding quantity and timing of 787s.
The thing about being a CEO is that sometimes you have to roll the dice and then take the consequences. Ultimately, someone's got to make these decisions.
I don't have the qualifications to make a judgement on this, but I think it's fair to say that a reasonable CEO could have been more risk adverse in this decision than Smisek was.
Jan 9, 2013, 8:09 pm
#43
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Today's JAL flight out of BOS is canceled as well. This time, it's the brakes.
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...days-1B7906402
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boei...days-1B7906402
Boeing knows how to build airplanes. And, surely they didn't use 100% new parts. And, surely, they did a ton of testing on this bird, because this mess we have today isn't an outcome that benefits them or anyone else.
Perhaps just a string of bad luck. As has been pointed out, the A380 went through a string like this too.
Who was CEO when they were ordered?
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 9, 2013 at 8:16 pm Reason: merge
Jan 9, 2013, 8:12 pm
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
Something really odd about all these things going wrong.
Boeing knows how to build airplanes. And, surely they didn't use 100% new parts. And, surely, they did a ton of testing on this bird, because this mess we have today isn't an outcome that benefits them or anyone else.
Perhaps just a string of bad luck. As has been pointed out, the A380 went through a string like this too.
Boeing knows how to build airplanes. And, surely they didn't use 100% new parts. And, surely, they did a ton of testing on this bird, because this mess we have today isn't an outcome that benefits them or anyone else.
Perhaps just a string of bad luck. As has been pointed out, the A380 went through a string like this too.
I'll leave that to you to research. You may want to revise your comment
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 9, 2013 at 8:17 pm Reason: merge
Jan 9, 2013, 9:46 pm
#45
In memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL (ORD), Phoenix AZ (PHX)
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM, Starwood Platinum, a nothing in several others
Posts: 5,176
I was scheduled to fly ORD-IAH on Jan 9, 2013 but there is is an equipment substitution to a 737-800. I called UA and told the agent that I specifically booked the flight because it was a 787. The 1K desk rebooked me for tomorrow. It took about 25 minutes on the phone but it was taken care of and upgrade confirmed.
In passing the agent said the international deployment is now on hold. I suggest people check reservations frequently for changes. Last night unitedcargo ( http://www.unitedcargo.com/utilities/cp1/frtSched.jsp ) showed the "Type of Aircraft" as a "78V" for my flight but this now says "73X". united.com showed contradictory info 737, 777 and 787. Even the 1K desk initially said it was still a 787. I suggested she check the nose number and it showed it was a 737-800.
In passing the agent said the international deployment is now on hold. I suggest people check reservations frequently for changes. Last night unitedcargo ( http://www.unitedcargo.com/utilities/cp1/frtSched.jsp ) showed the "Type of Aircraft" as a "78V" for my flight but this now says "73X". united.com showed contradictory info 737, 777 and 787. Even the 1K desk initially said it was still a 787. I suggested she check the nose number and it showed it was a 737-800.
